Frank B. Fiedler v. Charles Clark, Acting Director of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii

Good Law
714 F.2d 77·20 ERC 1703·50 ERC (BNA) 1703·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24661
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 22, 198382-4313California1,030 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fiedler brings this action against Hawaii’s pineapple growers, dairy farmers, dairy processors, the State of Hawaii, and the United States for declaratory and injunctive relief against contamination of dairy products with the pesticide heptachlor.

Jurisdiction is alleged under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ; the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 -379a; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 -136y as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972; and the Hawaii State Constitution, article XI, section 9.

The district court concluded that none of these statutes invested it with subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

I.

Fiedler contends the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint sua sponte. But the district court did not dismiss the complaint sua sponte; a motion to dismiss was filed by one of the defendants, Meadow Gold Dairies, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In any event, a federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking. See, e.g., Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 , 4…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.